Full Transcript

In Canada, Islamic groups want to introduce Islamic law for family disputes - and Muslim women are worried. In Australia and the US, pro-life advocates are putting abortion back onto the political agenda. A new journal of biblical criticism has appeared online; and a ten-day peace event in Sydney marks two years since the anti-Iraq-war marches.

Transcript

First up this morning, a story from Canada. In 2003, an organisation called the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice was established in Ontario to serve as an arbitration body for Ontario's Muslim communities.

The Institute was set up to use principles of Islamic law to arbitrate on matters of family and inheritance, and Muslims would be required to use it rather than the secular courts to settle disputes, as a testament of their faith - and that women will be pressured into taking family disputes to the Islamic courts rather than the secular courts.

The argument was that Ontario's existing Arbitration Act already allows religious groups to resolve family disputes in-house, provided the judgements are consistent with secular Canadian law. Orthodox Jewish groups have their own courts, so why shouldn't Muslims?

Well since then, alarm bells have been ringing all over Canada, particularly on the part of Muslim women's groups, who say that Islamic law doesn't view women as equal to men, and that therefore it can't provide justice on issues of divorce, or child custody or the division of property.

In June last year, Ontario's former Attorney-General Marion Boyd was approached by the government to review the existing Arbitration Act. In December, the Boyd Report was handed down, and it proposes that the Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be decided using religious law.

Syed Mumtaz Ali is founder and President of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, and he says that there's no cause for alarm.

Syed Mumtaz Ali: There is some concern I suppose. Generally, the impression I have is that because of certain ways Muslim women are treated under the law, without taking into account the total picture of what the Muslim law and the whole set-up is. If it's taken out of context, of course it does seem like Muslim women are not treated equally. However, whatever arguments women have, they will all be looked after now, and none of the parties is being under any kind of oppression to come to the arbitration.

David Rutledge: So what would happen then to a woman who was unhappy with a ruling handed down by an Islamic court, who then took her case to the civil courts. How would she be viewed within the Muslim community?

Syed Mumtaz Ali: Well, the Muslims will have no objection. If they come voluntarily, of their own choice to arbitration that's fine. If they have any grievance about it, if they don't like it, they can appeal against it, and they have the right to go to the Canadian court.

David Rutledge: Why is the focus here on family law exclusively?

Syed Mumtaz Ali: Because family law is what we call personal law. It's a private matter, and no matter what religion you belong to, we are entitled under the United Nations Charter, that the government of the country you happen to be living in should not interfere with the personal law matters of the individual people, the subjects or the citizens who are living in this country.

David Rutledge: But if, as you believe, Islamic law is divinely ordained, and governs all aspects of Muslims' lives, then why focus on family law only. Why not, for example, argue for the institution of Islamic criminal law in Canada?

Syed Mumtaz Ali: Because our religion does not permit it.

David Rutledge: But would you like to see that? Would you like to see Islamic law extended to cover every aspect of Muslims' lives?

Syed Mumtaz Ali: No. Our tradition does not permit criminal matters to be decided by arbitration. For Muslims, "Sharia law" as generally people call it, which includes criminal law, cannot be enforced here. And whatever civil law or Muslim law is applicable here or is going to be used, is going to be a very watered down version of Muslim personal law, for the reason that it has to be consistent with the Canadian law. If it is not consistent, then it will not be applied.

David Rutledge: I suppose it raises the question then, of in your opinion, is a Canadian Muslim a Muslim first and a Canadian citizen second?

Syed Mumtaz Ali: No. According to our own religious law, to be a good Muslim and to be a good Canadian is the same thing. In fact, for Muslim people we have a dual responsibility of being a good citizen, a law-abiding citizen of Canada, for the simple reason that - as I indicated to you - if a Muslim person lives in a non-Muslim country, then he has an obligation to follow the non-Muslim country's law, not only because of the non-Muslim country itself obliges them to follow it, but also in addition, the religious law of Muslims obliges them to follow the local law of Canada, or Australia. If I can put it simply in this way: a Muslim citizen of a non-Muslim country is going to be a much better, much more law-abiding citizen of that country ,than the other non-Muslim citizen would be in comparative terms.

David Rutledge: Syed Mumtaz Ali, founder of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice in Ontario.

Many Canadian Muslim women have arrived in Canada seeking refuge from repressive regimes where Islamic law gives them virtually no rights at all. And so they're not reassured by talk of 'watered down' Sharia law in their adoptive country.

Alia Hogben is Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Alia Hogben: We would prefer to have the same laws applied to all of us, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, culture, and this division, using religious law, I think is leading to other negative aspects, and we are very aware that this public discussion of Muslim family law and Sharia, is causing a backlash from non-Muslims. The thing is that the Muslim family law, Sharia, talking specifically from our point of view as Muslims, does not have as one of its fundamental principles the equality of women, and we say that as believing women, and from having looked at the research that has been done throughout the world, where Sharia Muslim family law is being practiced. And none of them, some are better than others, but none of them are fair to women.

David Rutledge: The founder of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice says in response to that objection that what they're thinking of setting up is a very watered down, if you like, version of Sharia law that would be subject to judicial oversight on precisely these questions of the treatment of women and this kind of thing, and indeed subordinate to the secular court system.

Alia Hogben: Well that's not quite accurate. First of all there are two Acts. One is called the Family Law Act, and we're saying under that Act - which has a very good preamble about shared responsibility and equality of partners and things, that under that Act - if we were using it, then things are fairly safe for all women. The Arbitration Act was passed, or revised rather in 1991, and the whole primary purpose of that Act is to do with commercial dispute. It was not meant to do anything with family, and what has happened is a clause in that Act, which makes the statement that other laws can be used, and that's where Mumtaz Ali and company are saying that religious laws should be allowed. And even the various safeguards that Marion Boyd is suggesting for the Arbitration Act are still problematic because as she herself has said, the Arbitration Act is problematic. And our point is why not have all family matters under one Act, which is clearer, simpler and does have religious freedom as well as women's equality rights protected.

David Rutledge: On the question of the treatment of women, there are many educated Muslim women who say that Islamic law has a bad name because of its interpretations, and that Islamic courts in Canada offer a chance for communities to develop a progressive form of Sharia that's consistent with secular human rights values. Can you see that happening?

Alia Hogben: Well I'm one of the people who thinks that it's the interpretations. Obviously we're an organisation of believing, practising women, and we don't think that the Qu'ran itself differentiates between men and women, but that it's the interpretations over the centuries. So yes, that is exactly the issue. To say that therefore, in Canada, with a population of Muslims with very few scholars, that we will put into practice, into application, some form of Muslim family law here is not very realistic. And I'm sorry but when Mumtaz Ali and the likes of him say that it's going to be watered down and according to Canadian law, then the answer very simply is why not then follow Canadian law?

David Rutledge: I suppose the answer to that would be that the government of Canada is committed to multiculturalism which means that Muslim communities are permitted to live as fully as possible according to their religious beliefs, and from that I suppose, you begin to wonder if really this is a question about redefining the limits of multiculturalism in Canada.

Alia Hogben: Well I think what we are saying is that in Canada we really have a tremendous amount of freedom to live as Muslims. It's encouraged, it's fostered, if you like, and there are no limits really set on how we as Muslims can live quite fully here, probably more fully here than many of the countries that we originated from. However that does not necessarily translate into fragmenting ourselves by different laws in Canada.

David Rutledge: But the Arbitration Act and indeed Mr Ali, both state that this private arbitration is a voluntary affair, and so it's not going to be imposed on people, it's simply a matter of choice whether they choose to have disputes settled in an Islamic court or in the secular court.

Alia Hogben: Well the answer for us for that is that there are variations and permutations of what choice is. From our experience, and being Muslims, we know that for us our community and our families are extremely important, far more important than in other cultures and other ethnicities. And so for us to go against the family or the community would be extremely difficult, and it has nothing to do with the educated or not educated, or from which part of the world. And the other thing is, that the way it's being presented by Mr Ali and by some of the others, is that to be a good Muslim you must abide by Muslim family law, and therefore when you present something like that, it makes it very difficult to say "I will go against it", or "This is my choice".

David Rutledge: Well just finally, the Boyd Reporthas recommended that the Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law. So what happens now? Are we going to see the institution of Sharia courts in Ontario.

Alia Hogben: Well we hope not. Our next step - we're very disappointed with the Boyd Report, very, very disappointed, but these are recommendations to the government of Ontario, and so our next step is to advocate with the government not to recommend, not to implement her recommendations, and we feel we have good grounds for going that way. We have a lot of groups who are supporting us, and we have a huge number of individual Canadians and Ontarians who are supporting us and saying, No, this should not happen, and agreeing that one law should apply to all of us. So we feel that there is more work to be done.

David Rutledge: Alia Hogben, Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Anti-abortion groups are going on the offensive at home and abroad. This morning the Anglican Primate Peter Carnley said the issue of abortion will not go away, and needs to be dealt with. On Monday night in Sydney, a meeting of political and religious leaders bumped the issue back up onto the political agenda. Coalition and Labor MPs were present, along with the Victorian Family First Senator-elect Steve Fielding, as well as Hindu, Jewish and Muslim leaders. Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbot sent a message of support.

Yesterday, religious leaders issued a statement opposing late-term abortions, and calling for mandatory counselling for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, while Nationals Senator Ron Boswell has called for an inquiry into the number and type of abortions being carried out in Australia.

Meanwhile in the United States, last week's anniversary of the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision has been marked by large pro-life demonstrations, and a mood of optimism among anti-abortion groups.

CHEERS

Sam Brownback: Are you guys fired - up for life?

RESPONSE

Sam Brownback: It may be a cold day, but you're warming the country and you're defending life, and I can stand here in front of you today and say that the end of abortion on demand has started.

David Rutledge: Republican Senator Sam Brownback, and he may not be exaggerating.

Roe vs Wadeenshrined the constitutional right of American women to seek abortions. But Norma McCorvey, the original Jane Roe in the landmark 1973 case, has filed a formal request to the Supreme Court to have Roe vs Wade overturned. The US Supreme Court presently leans in a pro-choice direction, but pro-life advocates hope that President George W. Bush will replace retiring judges with conservatives during his current term in office, and then who knows what could happen.

Frances Kissling is President of the Washington-based organisation Catholics For a Free Choice. She says that change in the abortion debate is also happening as the result of technology. Frances Kissling is talking with Noel Debien.

Frances Kissling: Well I think that many things have happened in the past 35 years related to the foetus, that has changed the debate. When abortion became legal through constitutional decisions in 1973, most Americans were focused on preventing pregnancy, they were focused on having smaller families, and we were also very much focused on women's rights and civil rights in this country. And that was the impetus for making abortion legal. Over the past 35 years, a lot more attention has been focused on the foetus. We now have a higher degree of sensitivity to the problem of infertility, and we have many, many more couples seeking to become pregnant, or to adopt. We also have the increases in technology that have made the foetus physically a more visible member of the human community. So we now have women with 3-D photos of their foetus at 12 weeks, or 8 weeks on the refrigerator that they can look at every day.

Noel Debien: And this technology has indeed changed people's views of the foetus, hasn't it?

Frances Kissling: That's right, and I think that that's something that those of us who are pro-choice don't need to be afraid of. I think one of the things that I see here that I'm not as pleased with as I would like to be, is that those of us who are pro-choice, and I'm very pro-choice, tend to look at this increased interest in the foetus with some suspicion and concern, because I think that we can balance the fact that yes, the foetus has value, without absolutising that value, because women also have value.

Noel Debien: Senator Sam Brownback has pledged to file a Bill that requires doctors to advise women that foetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation, and he claims that the "end of abortion on demand has started in America". How right is he?

Frances Kissling: Well first of all we've never had abortion on demand in America, so I think we've had a misinterpretation of what our Supreme Court ruled. Our Supreme Court said that a woman has a right to choose abortion, pretty much in an unrestricted manner through the second trimester. I think what we are seeing is a tiredness with 35 years of polarised debate in this country with small minorities being absolutist about this, and a desire on the part of the majority of Americans to move beyond that polarisation and see if we can't live with the system in which abortion is legal, but regulated.

Noel Debien: On the right hand of politics within the United States, Karl Rove, and on the left of politics, Senator Hilary Clinton have both been talking about moving beyond the old pro-life/pro-choice debate. In your view, are there real grounds for dialogue between the two polarised sides of the pro-life/pro-termination debate?

Frances Kissling: I think what we're finding now is that people want to talk about whether or not abortion in all instances and under all circumstances is a morally correct decision; is there a way to balance women's rights with a growing understanding of the foetus as a value-bearing entity. It's whether we're ready for a more open discussion about abortion in America than we were even two or three years ago.

Noel Debien: In a sense, the Roe vs Wade decision has Federal effect, and you have different State laws. Should Roe vs Wade be overturned, Would that really change things terribly much in America, given that the States seem to hold most legislative power?

Frances Kissling: Well first of all I would like to say that I'm very proud of the Roe vs Wade decision. I think that there are only two countries in the world, South Africa and the United States, where abortion is legal as a matter of constitutional right. And I think that that's an important government acknowledgement of women as citizens who can be trusted to make good decisions about their lives. There are 16 States in the United States that would vote in the majority in the legislatures to make abortion illegal in those States. Often they're States - in the south or the south-western part of the United States - where there are very significant numbers of poor and minority women who would really lose all access to abortion, and it's a very troubling possibility.

Noel Debien: Is it true that they would lose all access, given that with Roe vs Wade it seems that on the polarisation of the argument, one side is arguing this should be a constitutional right, another group is saying this shouldn't really be a matter of constitutional right, this should be regulated in other ways.

Frances Kissling: Those who are opposed to a constitutional right to abortion often say that they are looking for a State's rights approach to this, but the reality is they also say they want abortion to be totally illegal.

Noel Debien: I'm aware that a number of people who are listening within Australia would find it quite surprising to hear that there is a group called Catholics for a Free Choice who argue that termination should be an option for an individual to choose. How are you regarded by the Catholic church within America?

Frances Kissling: Well we're regarded by the institutional church from the Vatican to the American bishops as not upholding the tradition of the church, and as a pain in the neck. But what we find is that the majority of Catholic people have for quite some time, simply disregarded church leaders, both in terms of their personal practice and in terms of their beliefs, on the issue of contraception, abortion, divorce, remarriage, homosexuality, all of the areas of sexual and reproductive health, Catholics are going their own way.

Noel Debien: How, when you approach termination and pregnancy, how is it permissible to choose termination?

Frances Kissling: Well there are a number of reasons and very briefly I'll just run through them. The first and most important thing that's least understood by Catholics and by others. And that is that the Catholic church has no position on when the foetus becomes a person. This simply has not been told to us by God, but that we should act as if the foetus were a person even though we do not know if it is. That creates room within Catholic teaching for individuals to exercise their conscience and to make up their own mind about when they think the foetus becomes a person, and what other values besides foetal status, would go into a moral decision. And Catholic theology actually encourages the use of our conscience as a primary factor in moral decision making. That's the crux of it.

Noel Debien: Frances Kissling, thank you very much for your time.

Frances Kissling: You're very welcome, it was a pleasure to talk to you.

David Rutledge: Frances Kissling, President of Catholics for a Free Choice, talking there with Noel Debien.

A new journal in biblical studies has appeared online. It's called The Bible and Critical Theory, and it's stepping in to fill the gap left by Semeia, the innovative and highly regarded journal of biblical criticism that folded in 2002.

'Critical theory' is an umbrella term that covers a range of contemporary approaches to reading literary texts: deconstruction and feminism are perhaps the best known, but critical theory also includes newer approaches like eco-criticism, which looks at texts in the light of environmental concerns.

I'm joined now by Roland Boer, who's Managing Editor of The Bible and Critical Theory. Roland, welcome to the program. What are some of the more recent currents in critical theory that this new journal is picking up on?

Roland Boer: Well there's a very interesting debate taking place at the moment in political philosophy. A number of scholars have actually been coming out of political philosophy and looking particularly at the New Testament and the writings of Paul, and saying, Well actually there's an awful lot here that is relevant for political philosophy and so they've been producing these books, particularly on Paul, commentaries on Paul's Book to the Romans and wanting to deduce political insights from this material. And Biblical scholars in particular have skills that they can bring to that debate.

David Rutledge: What kind of things in Paul's writing are political philosophers picking up on?

Roland Boer: One key idea is: what does it mean to be a political subject? What does it mean, in other words, to be a citizen of a nation-state, or of a country. And one of the arguments that's put forward there, is that you get the first development of that idea in Paul's writings, what it actually means in light of God's grace, what does it mean then to become a new person. And these philosophers, or some of them, are actually arguing that's also a profound political insight, and Paul is the first one to put that forward.

For me, and for a number of us who are working in these areas, the emerging issue and the emerging question - which is an old one, which has obviously been given new direction with international political events, the so-called war on terrorism and so on - is the intersections between Islam, Jews, and Christianity, particularly in the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. And an increasing number of scholars are looking at those kinds of connections, and engaging in dialogue with Muslim scholars over the Qu'ran and the relationship with the Hebrew Bible. And that's one of the really exciting areas as far as I'm concerned, that we'll see a lot more of in the coming years.

David Rutledge: Given that critical theory is about interrogating master narratives, and that the Bible at least from a traditional viewpoint is the master narrative, I suppose the question is: why has it taken so long for cultural theorists to get interested in the Bible?

Roland Boer: Yes, my own sense of that is - well, two things, I guess. One is that the Bible's often lumped in with theology, and it's felt to be a text which you'd only really want to look at if you're involved in a religious institution like the church. And then if you did want to study the Bible, the only reason you'd do it was for some faith commitment or because you wanted to convert people, or proselytise. And so there was almost an unconscious sidelining of the Bible in various ways. One of the things that's been happening in the last, say, 10, 15, 20 years perhaps, is that with a lot of the changes that have been happening globally in terms of politics and culture and so on, the old connections and associations that were attached to the Bible have been broken down, or are starting to break down, and so you get this greater openness, I think, in terms of the way in which people are talking about, or looking at, the Biblical material. Realising that it is both a foundational text in all sorts of way, but that it's also a text that's profoundly ambiguous, ambivalent, riven with contradictions - and that's actually what makes it interesting.

David Rutledge: Roland Boer, Editor of The Bible and Critical Theory. It's an online journal, and if you're interested in subscribing or contributing then you'll be able to find details on our transcript page.

Well, it's two years ago this week since the Iraq war loomed on the horizon, and millions of people around the world turned out to march for peace. In Sydney, the anniversary is being marked by a 10-day series of events called When the World Said No to War. There's a photo exhibition, a film festival, a drama production and much more.

The event is being supported by the National Council of Churches in Australia, who are also involved in the Decade to Overcome Violence Project. But since the war in Iraq, the question has become more about how to manage the situation as it unfolds. So what can the churches bring to this debate?

Jonathan Inkpin is an Anglican priest; he's also program manager of the Decade to Overcome Violence Project.

Jonathan Inkpin: Part of what the churches are doing, or many theologians at the moment are questioning the way in which we go about peace, and the idea that we bring about peace through war, and that ultimately really we need to look again at that, and I think the American intervention in Iraq has quite clearly demonstrated that it's one thing to win a war, as it were, but to actually establish peace is another thing. And as in Vietnam I think the Americans, some of the Americans have realised that this is a chaotic way of going about things, and that making peace has to be done through peaceful means.

David Rutledge: Well Jon, tell me about the World Council of Churches initiative, The Decade to Overcome Violence; it's quite an ambitious title, the Decade to Overcome Violence Project; is this a Utopian goal in any sense?

Jonathan Inkpin: Is the Christian Gospel Utopian? In its own space there's a sense in which it's always going to be beyond us, "not yet", as it were, as theologians put it, but it's also very much amongst us, the Kingdom of God is also within us. So we expect to see the signs of peace and the signs of the Gospel made present. It's a deep challenge really to the churches as much as anything else, to repent of our own complicity in violence and the ways in which we contribute to abuse and destruction. And I guess that as much as anything else is the biggest challenge the churches have.

David Rutledge: We're about half way through the decade. What would you say the achievements have been so far?

Jonathan Inkpin: I think the achievements have been in this country I think in terms of the commitments that churches have made to listening to one another. The other great success I think probably has been the deeper understanding between people of different faith in this country and across cultures as well, and particularly the work that's been done with the churches in relationship particularly to the Muslim communities, but also with the Jewish community and others.

David Rutledge: You've said that the Decade to Overcome Violence is being approached in Australia as a process to change the culture of the churches in the hope that this will then change Australian culture. The assumption is that the churches in Australia are somehow connected to the broader culture, which I suppose some Australians would find surprising.

Jonathan Inkpin: Well we are part of the community, and we seek to cultivate communities which value diversity, and that's something which I think is at the heart of the Australian spirit, and the churches can do that very effectively, by showing that we might differ in different ways within the Christian faith, we might differ in the sense of our understanding of God in relationship to Muslims, or Jews, but that we can live and work very positively together with great success for the benefit of others. And I think that's not just for Australia, but I think Australians have, and the churches and other religions, have a great witness to make to the rest of the world.

David Rutledge: Jonathan Inkpin of the National Council of Churches in Australia. And if you're in Sydney and you'd like to go along to any of the events included in When the World Said No to War, we'll have details of what's on, on our transcript page.